Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been examined and rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to abstract ideas.
Claim 1 is a method claim and recites:
A computer implemented method, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, environment data associated with a robotic device in an environment; (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering 2106.05(g))
analyzing the environment data to identify one or more activities the robotic device performs in the environment; (mental process by observation)
generating one or more simulations associated with the one or more activities and the robotic device; (see below under prong 2, “apply it”)
determining one or more limitations of the robotic device associated with the one or more activities; and (mental process by observation)
identifying, responsive to determining one or more limitations, one or more apparatuses, wherein the one or more apparatuses are associated with the one or more limitations. (mental process by observation)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim recites an additional element including a processor at generic level to receive data, and the claim also recites generating one or more simulations associated with the one or more activities and the robotic device. None of these integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites an additional element including a processor at generic level to receive data, which does not amount significantly more to abstract idea, determined to be an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim also recites generating one or more simulations associated with the one or more activities and the robotic device. The robotic device is a field of use. The generating step is considered as mere instructions to “apply it”. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 2 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a primary apparatus from the one or more apparatuses, wherein the primary apparatus is based, at least in part, on the one or more limitations; (mental process by observation)
determining an optimal method of attaching the primary apparatus to the robotic device; and (mental process)
attaching the primary apparatus to the robotic device with the optimal method. (extra-solution activity, applying it 2106.05(f))
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite any additional element.
Claim 3 is a method claim depending on claim 2 and recites:
The computer implemented method of claim 2, further including:
analyzing the environment data and the one or more robotic devices with the primary apparatus; (mental process)
determining one or more secondary limitations associated with the one or more robotic devices with the primary apparatus and the one or more activities; and (mental process by observation)
identifying a secondary apparatus from the one or more apparatuses, wherein the secondary apparatus is based, at least in part, on the one or more secondary limitations. (mental process)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite any additional element.
Claim 5 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a primary apparatus and a secondary apparatus from the one or more apparatuses, wherein the primary apparatus and the secondary apparatus are based, at least in part, on the one or more limitations; (mental process by observation)
determining an optimal method of attaching the primary apparatus and the secondary apparatus to the robotic device; and (mental process)
attaching the primary apparatus and the secondary apparatus to the robotic device with the optimal method. (extra-solution activity, applying it 2106.05(f))
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite any additional element.
Claim 7 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the one or more simulations associated with the one or more activities and the one or more robotic devices is based at least in part on one or more digital twins of the robotic device and the environment.
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite any additional element significantly more than the abstract idea. Digital twins of the robotic device are considered field of use and do not overcome the abstract idea rejections.
Claim 8 is a system claim and recites:
A system, the system comprising:
a memory; and
a processor in communication with the memory, the processor being configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving environment data associated with a robotic device in an environment; (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering 2106.05(g))
analyzing the environment data to identify one or more activities the robotic device performs in the environment; (mental process by observation)
generating one or more simulations associated with the one or more activities and the robotic device; (see below under prong 2, “apply it”)
determining one or more limitations of the robotic device associated with the one or more activities; and (mental process by observation)
identifying, responsive to determining one or more limitations, one or more apparatuses, wherein the one or more apparatuses are associated with the one or more limitations. (mental process by observation)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim recites an additional element including a processor at generic level to receive data, and the claim also recites generating one or more simulations associated with the one or more activities and the robotic device. None of these integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites an additional element including a processor at generic level to receive data, which does not amount significantly more to abstract idea, determined to be an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim also recites generating one or more simulations associated with the one or more activities and the robotic device. The robotic device is a field of use. The generating step is considered as mere instructions to “apply it”. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 9-10, 12, and 14 are system claims and recite limitations analogous to those in claims 2-3, 5, and 7. They are, therefore, rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 15-17 and 19 are product claims and recite limitations analogous to those in claims 8-10 and 12. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cella et al. (US 2022/0187847).
As per claim 1, Cella teaches a computer implemented method, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, environment data associated with a robotic device in an environment (¶ 0138, 0296; Cella teaches receiving data streams representing visual and contextual information about the objects, including robots, and their environment);
analyzing the environment data to identify one or more activities the robotic device performs in the environment (¶ 0031, 0373-0374; Cella teaches using received data, corresponding to environment data, to identify robot activities; this teaching indicates analyzing the environment data to identify);
generating one or more simulations associated with the one or more activities and the robotic device (¶ 0018, 0044; Cella teaches performing simulation of workflow including digital models of robots using environment simulation data collected by sensor);
determining one or more limitations of the robotic device associated with the one or more activities (¶ 0018; Cella teaches performing simulation to redefine iteratively one or more of a set of tasks comprising generating fleet resource configuration data structure; resource configuration data structure comprises robot selection; Cella’s teaching of iteratively redefining robot selection in iteratively redefining resource configuration data structure is interpreted as determining one or more limitations of the robotic device associated with the one or more activities); and
identifying, responsive to determining one or more limitations, one or more apparatuses, wherein the one or more apparatuses are associated with the one or more limitations (¶ 0703, 2338; Cella’s teaching of performing simulation to redefine iteratively one or more of a set of tasks comprising generating fleet resource configuration data structure comprising robot selection reads onto this limitation).
As per claim 2, Cella teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a primary apparatus from the one or more apparatuses, wherein the primary apparatus is based, at least in part, on the one or more limitations; (¶ 0018, 2338-2339; Cella teaches performing simulation iteratively to select resource comprising robot including end effectors to be connected to a robot to perform a task; this teaching of iteration in selecting an end effector for attachment reads onto this limitation)
determining an optimal method of attaching the primary apparatus to the robotic device (¶ 0018, 2338-2339; Cella teaches performing simulation iteratively to select resource comprising robot including end effectors to be connected to a robot to perform a task; the teaching of iteration in selecting an end effector for attachment can be interpreted under BRI as determining an optimal method of attaching the primary apparatus to the robotic device); and
attaching the primary apparatus to the robotic device with the optimal method (¶ 0018, 2338-2341; Cella teaches performing simulation iteratively to select resource comprising robot including end effectors to be connected to a robot to perform a task and an example of 3D printer adapters for printing on a need basis; this teaching means reads onto this limitation).
As per claim 3, Cella teaches the computer implemented method of claim 2, further including:
analyzing the environment data and the one or more robotic devices with the primary apparatus (¶ 2339; Cell teaches attaching an end effector such as a gripper to grasp objects; nevertheless, different types of fingers can be attached to a gripper depending on the object, and objects are analyzed to select a type of fingers to be attached to the gripper; this teaching reads onto this limitation);
determining one or more secondary limitations associated with the one or more robotic devices with the primary apparatus and the one or more activities (¶ 2339; Cell teaches attaching an end effector such as a gripper to grasp objects; nevertheless, different types of fingers can be attached to a gripper depending on the object, and objects are analyzed to select a type of fingers to be attached to the gripper; this teaching implies one or more limitations of the gripper, in this example corresponding to the one or more robotic devices with the primary apparatus and the one or more activities are determined); and
identifying a secondary apparatus from the one or more apparatuses, wherein the secondary apparatus is based, at least in part, on the one or more secondary limitations (¶ 2339; Cell teaches attaching an end effector such as a gripper to grasp objects; nevertheless, different types of fingers can be attached to a gripper depending on the object, and objects are analyzed to select a type of fingers to be attached to the gripper; this teaching reads onto identifying a secondary apparatus as recited in this limitation).
As per claim 4, the computer implemented method of claim 3, further including:
simulating the secondary apparatus and the one or more robotic device with the primary apparatus (¶ 0018; Cella teaches performing simulation to redefine iteratively one or more of a set of tasks comprising generating fleet resource configuration data structure; resource configuration data structure comprises robot selection; Cella’s teaching of performing simulation iteratively for redefining robot selection reads onto this limitation);
determining an optimal method of attaching the secondary apparatus to the robotic device (¶ 0018, 2338-2339; Cella teaches performing simulation iteratively to select resource comprising robot including end effectors to be connected to a robot to perform a task; the teaching of iteration in selecting an end effector for attachment can be interpreted under BRI as determining an optimal method of attaching the secondary apparatus to the robotic device); and
attaching the secondary apparatus to the robotic device with the optimal method of attaching the secondary apparatus (¶ 0018, 2338-2341; Cella teaches performing simulation iteratively to select resource comprising robot including end effectors to be connected to a robot to perform a task and an example of 3D printer adapters for printing on a need basis; this teaching means reads onto actually attaching the secondary apparatus to the robotic device as recited in this limitation).
As per claim 5, limitations in this claim are equivalent to those recited in claims 2-3. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 6, Cella teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
analyzing the environment data associated with the environment (¶ 0031, 0373-0374; Cella teaches using received data, corresponding to environment data, to identify robot activities; this teaching indicates analyzing the environment data associated with the environment);
identifying an additional robotic device performing the one or more activities (¶ 0703, 2338; Cella’s teaching of performing simulation to redefine iteratively one or more of a set of tasks comprising generating fleet resource configuration data structure comprising robot selection reads onto this limitation);
simulating the additional robotic device to determine the one or more limitations of the additional robotic device (¶ 0018, 2339; Cella teaches performing simulation to redefine iteratively one or more of a set of tasks comprising generating fleet resource configuration data structure; resource configuration data structure comprises robot selection; Cell also teaches attaching an end effector such as a gripper to grasp objects; nevertheless, different types of fingers can be attached to a gripper depending on the object, and objects are analyzed to select a type of fingers to be attached to the gripper; this teaching implies one or more limitations of the gripper, in this example corresponding to the additional robotic device); and
identifying, responsive to determining the one or more limitations of the additional robotic device, one or more other apparatuses, wherein the one or more other apparatuses are associated with the one or more limitations of the additional robotic device (¶ 2339; Cell teaches attaching an end effector such as a gripper to grasp objects; nevertheless, different types of fingers can be attached to a gripper depending on the object, and objects are analyzed to select a type of fingers to be attached to the gripper; this teaching reads onto identifying a secondary apparatus as recited in this limitation).
As per claim 7, Cella teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the one or more simulations associated with the one or more activities and the one or more robotic devices is based at least in part on one or more digital twins of the robotic device and the environment (¶ 0044).
As per claim 8, Cella teaches a system, the system comprising:
a memory (¶ 2318); and
a processor in communication with the memory, the processor being configured to perform operations comprising (¶ 2318):
receiving environment data associated with a robotic device in an environment (¶ 0138, 0296; Cella teaches receiving data streams representing visual and contextual information about the objects, including robots, and their environment);
analyzing the environment data to identify one or more activities the robotic device performs in the environment (¶ 0031, 0373-0374; Cella teaches using received data to identify robot activities; this teaching indicates analyzing the environment data to identify);
generating one or more simulations associated with the one or more activities and the robotic device (¶ 0018, 0044; Cella teaches performing simulation of workflow including digital models of robots using environment simulation data collected by sensor);
determining one or more limitations of the robotic device associated with the one or more activities (¶ 0018; Cella teaches performing simulation to redefine iteratively one or more of a set of tasks comprising generating fleet resource configuration data structure; resource configuration data structure comprises robot selection; Cella’s teaching of iteratively redefining robot selection in iteratively redefining resource configuration data structure is interpreted as determining one or more limitations of the robotic device associated with the one or more activities); and
identifying, responsive to determining one or more limitations, one or more apparatuses, wherein the one or more apparatuses are associated with the one or more limitations (¶ 0703, 2338; Cella’s teaching of performing simulation to redefine iteratively one or more of a set of tasks comprising generating fleet resource configuration data structure comprising robot selection reads onto this limitation).
As per claim 9, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 2. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 10, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 3. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 11, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 4. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 12, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 5. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 13, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 6. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 14, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 7. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 15, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 8. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 16, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 2. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 17, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 3. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 18, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 4. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 19, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 5. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 20, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 6. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong Van Luu whose telephone number is 571-272-8572. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:30 to 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3676, the fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights